Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 7 - Evidence - Meeting of May 27, 2009 - Afternoon
DAUPHIN, Manitoba, Wednesday, May 27, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 2:13 p.m. to study the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: issues pertaining to Indian Act Elections).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, we will proceed with an open-mike session with the five participants we have here at this time. I will give you five minutes each to make whatever points you want. You do not have to take five minutes, but we will not let it go over five minutes because that is something that we set up, and we have to be uniform right across the country. When you speak, I would like you to identify yourself and where you are from. We will start with the grand chief.
Chief Norman Bone, Chair, West Region Tribal Council: You will get paranoid calling me grand chief; I am chair of West Region Tribal Council.
The Chair: Chair of West Region Tribal Council.
Mr. Bone: Another role I play is spokesman for the Treaty Two band.
The Chair: You are higher than a grand chief. I am sorry, I insulted you. It was not my intention.
Mr. Bone: What makes me higher than a grand chief is Chief of the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway Nation.
The Chair: Now I have that straight.
Mr. Bone: That is what I wanted to speak about anyway.
When you asked me at the beginning of the session if I would to make an overall presentation, I said that, no, I would not. I think that the exercise that we went through was that we wanted to participate. Then you get a true picture from different leadership and people from the West Region area. Therefore, it was not a complete presentation for myself, which I had forgotten to clarify earlier. That is the process that was followed.
I wanted to talk about the term, chief and the positions we hold. Over the past 130 years, our positions have become watered down to administrators and as, you know, board members, committee members. We had been referred to as every name in the book as leadership from within our community, and even from outside of our community. However, our original existence in terms of leadership came prior to treaty making, where we were recognized by our families as leaders. Many of us around the table will have links to those old leaderships through family relatives. I think that is a way that our leadership has survived the changes, the introduction of the Indian Act legislation.
One of the things I wanted to be clear on though, as part of this presentation, is if you make a recommendation on our behalf that it does not remove our authority, our current understanding of authority as chief and council at this present time to another level, to a regional level, to a provincial level or anything of that nature.
We are the ones who are closest to the grassroots people. Many times we get attacked by saying that other chiefs are not grassroots representatives, but we are the only ones that are actually elected into our positions by the grassroots people. Those people are within our communities, and, of course, the practice now has been from our communities, the ones who have membership to our reserves; they participate in the elections. They are the only grassroots people who are involved in selection of leadership who can operate not only at their grassroots level but at their tribal or council regional level and at the provincial level, the national level, and also now at the international level. We have the ability to move all through all those lines.
If you are going to make a recommendation on our behalf in reference to any possible change to leadership selections, or elections, keep in mind that we are still of the opinion to retain our current status with a direct connection to the grassroots people, whether they are on- or off-reserve.
I wanted to leave that with you as part of our presentation. I think that, aside from the common themes, yes, we are in support of — at least Keeseekoowenin is — the longer terms of three to four years. We are even supportive of shortening the activity around the time for elections. You know, up to 70 some odd days is quite a long time for any community. Therefore, we are looking at something that is more practical in the sense that it will make us work because we do not want to spend two months out of every two years or out of every so many years doing an overall campaign. We have some cases within our area where we know every band member or we know every household within our community. We need that to be looked at.
In closing, I wanted to just say that with whatever recommendations you make on our behalf, do not change our powers. Do not try to work at delegating our authority from us to another level. I think we would prefer to retain it at the current level that we have right now; that is the key thing.
Someone asked about concerns with respect to on-reserve or off-reserve people participating, and I think we have to keep that in mind.
Meegwetch. That is all I have to say today.
The Chair: Thank you.
Chief Derek Nepinak, if you would make some brief comments, sir.
Derek Nepinak, Chief, Pine Creek First Nation: What I have to say will be along the same lines of what Chief Bone was just stating about the authority and the power of chief and council in our communities.
At the assembly last week, I reminded all of the chiefs around the table that we, as chiefs, are living, breathing, walking, talking examples of the expression of the political will of our grassroots people. We can never lose sight of that. We can never let go of that. The true power in our governments rests with the people who live in our communities, the people who put us here.
In saying that, I think it is important that whatever recommendations you do make maintain the respect and recognition for where the power of First Nations people rests, and that is with each and every individual in our First Nation communities.
The other thing I wanted to mention was the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I know that, to date, the Conservative Government has taken a position on that. They have come out with an apology. My feeling is that if the apology is to mean anything to us here on the ground, there has to be processes put into place to show the meaning of what it is to say, "I am sorry." If I could make any recommendation to the people who are will be providing recommendations, which are yourselves, it would be to please inform your perspective by incorporating the declaration in some format. In particular, the declaration components I am talking about are the ones that recognize the inherent rights of indigenous peoples to self-determination and self-government.
With that, that is all I have to say.
I once again thank you for coming into the community and sitting down with us. The end of the day, regardless of the recommendations that are made, to be able to sit down and eat together and get to know one another is nothing but good because we learn a little more about one another whenever we do that.
Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, chief.
Dwayne Blackbird, as an individual: I am Dwayne Blackbird from Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation. I will not speak in particular about the Indian Act. I will talk more along the lines of treaty.
We signed a treaty in 1871, but you have to go back and think about the days before treaties, how we governed all aspects of our lives. We handled our membership; we handled marriages; we handled everything. Then when you talk about the Indian Act, I was never one to study the Indian Act. I have learned over the years from the beginning of the residential schools and so on, about putting that responsibility onto someone else. I know the responsibility belongs with us as treaty people.
Just by listening to the elders through the years, they have always told me that if you want to set something up, begin a new foundation, to build it on a treaty basis. That was our first relationship with the Crown; in that case it was for settlement and immigration.
I guess the biggest benefit of our treaty is the newcomers, yet I knew from the teachings of elders that that is what the relationship was all about. I think in the treaty, there were provisions that said that they would not interfere with our governance, if you want to call it that. That is why I was not always one to take the Indian Act and amend it. I always wanted to get out of the Indian Act. It is hard to step into something when we do not know really what we are stepping into. What is the alternative?
We went through a number of years with the Penner Report and the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, which cost millions of dollars. I know for a fact that if you were to hold these self-government discussions, they cannot be held under the Indian Act because there is no trust with that department because of what happened to our people ever since it was created in 1876.
Therefore, that is why I do not speak too much about the Indian Act because I always wanted to get out of the Indian Act. Then what do we get into? We talk about self-government agreements, comprehensive land claim agreements that bottom out other than being under the Indian Act.
When we talk about mandates, our organizations, I am not here to speak against them, but they have a mandate to only do certain things. They have a mandate when we bring forth our interests or concerns in sort of a collective way. However, if you really want to get back to true meaningful discussions, I think you have to bring it back closer to the grassroots people. For example, thank you for being here instead of being in these big urban centres.
I think we have tried. A few years ago, we had a framework agreement initiative, FAI, which was supposed to lead up to a self-government agreement, but it did not work from a huge regional position, if you want to call it that. Therefore, you have to get right back to the people who you want to change for their betterment. I do not think you can amend it, the Indian Act; we have done our job. I think we have to get out from under the Indian Act because all the Indian Act did for us was just take away our responsibility, so to speak. You have to give that responsibility back to the people. We saw what happened when we are under the Indian Act.
Thank you for trying to amend it. However, if we are going to do something, we have to get back to the original relationship. In that case, it is the treaty relationship that we would uphold the peace and make us good neighbours.
That is all I will say.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Blackbird.
We will go now to Mr. Ahmo.
Mike D. Ahmo, as an individual: My name is Mike Ahmo; I am from the O-Chi-Chak-Ko-Sipi First Nation, Crane River, Manitoba. I am an off-reserve member, I live in Ste. Rose. However, I get involved with my band only through the band audits that are provided. That is the only involvement I have with my band because my chief and council do not speak to me.
The Chair: Could you repeat that please? You said your band and council?
Mr. Ahmo: The chief and council of my band have not spoken to me since June of last year.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Ahmo: With respect to the terms of office for chief and council, I would think that four years is a little too long, and two years is not long enough. I think three years would be sufficient.
I had a discussion with Chief Clearsky about the election regulations under the Indian Act. They are flawed because they do not have a mechanism in there as to how a chief and council can be removed from office, say, for corrupt practices. I have read that part of the Indian Act about elections, and I just could not find anything in there if I wanted to do something about the chief and council. I could find nothing in there that can help me.
As far as accountability is concerned, I think there should be some type of a clause in there that will dictate how our chief and council should be accountable to Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC, and to the people also. In my band, the last band membership meeting we had was back in about 2005 or so. We do not get any information whatsoever as to what happening in our band. Everything is kept to the chief and council and the administrative staff. It is a big problem.
As far as mail-in ballots are concerned, we had a discussion. I have had quite a number of discussions with different people about mail-in ballots. What does a person in Vancouver know about what is happening at the reserve level? They know nothing, yet that person will vote for the first person that gets his or her phone number, not knowing what that person is all about.
The late Chief John MacDonald and I had said that they should let the people come in and vote. Just as Chief Clearsky had said, if the people are that interested in the band, band elections, band issues, they can come down to the reserve and cast their vote then. Never mind the mail-in ballots because there are many problems with the mail-in ballots. People down on the reserve have seen candidates walking in there with handfuls of mail-in ballots right on election day. Therefore, something needs to be done about the mail-in ballots. The election regulations should have a provision stating that the people will be allowed to vote, off-reserve members, whoever, are allowed to vote, that you still have to abide by the Corbière decision, but it has to be in writing. That is one of the things that Chief MacDonald and I had talked about.
Other than that, I think one of the other things that should happen with this is that it should go down to the reserve level, let the people have a say in these things because I am pretty sure there are other people out there that have the same opinion as I do about this whole elections issue. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Last but not least, Mr. Clearsky, Waywayseecappo.
Murray Clearsky, as an individual: Murray Clearsky, Waywayseecappo First Nation, and I am also a member of the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council.
Once again, I would like to express my two cents, my common sense about this election process. I know for a fact that we are supposed to have a Grand Chief of Manitoba who is supposed to speak on behalf of Manitoba chiefs. That is why I got a little excited when you were mentioning grand chief. I thought, "Oh-oh, another grand chief."
If there is to be a change or any consultation done here in Manitoba with respect to the Indian Act elections, I would like to see that direction be given to our First Nation communities. The grand chief does not speak on behalf of our communities; he works for us as chiefs here in Manitoba. I understand there should be one spokesperson from this province. However, in my opinion, as Bill Traverse puts it, in my humble opinion, I think it should come from ourselves, from each chief. If it has to be split up in different nationalities, such as the Ojibway, the Dakotas, the Cree and so forth, if we have to have a representative such as that, then so be it. Our ways and our ways of thinking from how our grand chief thinks are completely different. I have nothing against his nationality, which is Cree, but we are Ojibway. I have nothing against people who preach or any reference to the Bible, but I see quite often in different areas that our elders always go by the sage, the sweet grass and so on. If you are by the Bible and so forth, they do not allow that.
A good example is that we had an assembly meeting in Fort Alexander last week, and not once have I seen that happen there, other than the opening ceremony. He was not a part of that opening ceremony to share the pipe and so forth, which how we were supposed to start, because he is against a process such as that, our traditional ways. That is why I am bringing this forth. You know, the Ojibway. If there is going to be any more consultation and any more dollars given toward this process, I would like to see it given to different organizations or tribal councils, or whatever.
I heard about the discussions you had with the students here, which was very good, I appreciate that. I think more of that should be done at our own local levels. That is where we need to promote our children. They cannot see beyond the boundaries of their reserves, the First Nations, because of the situations we live in. All they know is, we will go to school today and then wait for the end of the month, the thirtieth, and have a celebration because that is when it is welfare day. That is how our students are being taught right now. Sure, they will go all the way and get their grade 12 and so forth, but that seems to be the end of it. You know, many us here try our damndest to promote them, to give them some advice and so forth; but what do you do? It should start with the parents and work all the way down, but it seems to be stopping there, with our children. They are not going beyond. They cannot see beyond, for whatever reason, because of the social life that our First Nation communities live in.
That is bad, and it will get worse before it gets better. Gangs, drugs, you name it, are starting to come into our communities. They are even getting as good at it now as hiring planes to land in the local lakes in our surrounding communities. They are supposed to be serving a purpose for our communities; they are not doing their part. It seems as though those detachments are scared, you know. Other than seeing a plane take off from one of the bigger lakes in our communities and seeing it in the air, there has got to be someone big behind that organization. That is happening right now in our areas.
The Chair: I have to be fair.
Mr. Clearsky: If you are going to be fair, I heard you talk about $130,000.
The Chair: Yes, sir. Do you want me to share it with you?
Mr. Clearsky: Yes, if you do not mind.
Thank you for listening to me and coming out here to do this presentation. I did not know we had to give you a letter so that we can host this. Maybe the next time around we will. Thank you very much.
The Chair: I would like to start off with two points, if I may, senators. Saying that you invited us to your Waywayseecappo First Nation to listen to the grassroots, how do we not get into a position where we get only that side that opposed you in the election? That is the danger. I would love to be able to go and sit down at Waywayseecappo, but the only problem is that all we would have is a beef session from the people who did not win.
I do not know how you would deal with that because I have given this a great deal of thought. I would really like to hear from the people you serve as chiefs because from there, you get the real feel of what is happening; not that I doubt you. In 90 per cent of the cases of chiefs, they take on the responsibility with the idea of doing well for their people. However, that is one of the challenges that I see, that we do not get into just a beef session from the opposition that is not in power. Does that make sense?
Mr. Clearsky: I will ensure that I have supporters there.
The Chair: All right. If we could be assured of a balance of your supporters and your opponents, I would not think twice.
My second point is that Mr. Blackbird brought up the fact that we should get out of the Indian Act. I think you should, because as long as you are under it, it is the same as my kids coming to me and saying, "Dad, give me something, I need this, I need that." It is a parental type of mentality; it is a paternal situation.
I would work day and night if I could find someone who could give me an alternative system that we could institute and eliminate and push out the Indian Act. However, the moment you go to push it out, you get a person that is living on welfare, and panic sets in. They say, "Holy smokes, what is happening? They are trying to destroy my livelihood." They lose sight of the fact that their kids, grandkids and great-grandkids will not have a chance, other than to be on welfare and go to INAC saying, "Please give me this; please give me that; I have been a good person."
Those are the two things that come to mind. I would love to go to your First Nation and sit down with your people. I believe I could get the authority at this table of these members, and the other members of the committee who are not here.
Maybe you would like to comment on that, or does anyone else have any questions?
Mr. Bone: I am glad that we are having this exchange because I agree with what Mr. Blackbird was saying, namely, that it is time we get out of the Indian Act. One of the comments I made earlier was in retrospect, but I think it has to be. We have to do that through a process; you are right. Ultimately, our objective is to do that. Somehow we have to ensure that the reserve land we have and the land that we might obtain through treaty land entitlements, TLEs, claims or land we purchase are all locked into the system so that we do not lose that. The danger down the road is that, from whatever type of initiatives, we could lose some small gains we have made.
I would agree that the process for us is to look at getting out of the Indian Act. I think that there is a procedure to do that. We have been locked into it for 100 years. Let us look at getting out over the next short while.
There are ways of gathering more information a balance of information from our membership. I would like to ensure that that is done with our agreement; I would not like to participate in a session that bypasses chief and council to get that information. You would probably have to ask the federal government for permission to be able to do that, but we would also say to you that you would have to ask us, as chief and council, for permission to do that because we would want to ensure that the information gathered is balanced.
I know many of us as leaders over the years have shocked the heck out of research and studies and said that we are tired of all of that. About six years ago, I decided to change my mind and go to bat for research and data collection. It came from just finding out the value of those findings from different studies that have been done. We have to participate in another type of research, another type of study; but one that is really driven by ourselves, to help us determine the real truths, to find out what the truths are that are out there.
The regional health survey, for example, has made some gains over the past several years. I know the first part was done. One process is being undertaken right now, where we have researchers out there to ask for information from our membership, quite detailed information. Hopefully that information, the way it is being designed, will come back to our table as chief and council so that we can use that information for further development, in much the same way.
I would suggest, if we are going to participate in trying to get the real picture from us — and I support getting the real picture from us — part of this whole process is that we do research or a study that would get balanced information, not just a wide open band meeting because a venting session would happen. You could have a focus group approach or a combination of those. Also, you will have to have someone interview people on a one-on-one basis; that way you would get people in their comfort zone and really be able to tell what it is that they want to present and how they see, for example, changes around what we are talking about.
I would suggest that we do some type of a study — here we go again — whether there will be a pilot per area, per region, or for Manitoba or for Canada. However, I would certainly support that initiative because then, once and for all, you would gather all of these truths, and you would be able to present them to all of the decision makers to be able to make the changes.
That is my suggestion through that exercise.
Mr. Nepinak: I would like to answer a question that you had, but I also do not want to speak ahead of the senators. It is supplementary to Chief Bone.
The Chair: Chief, you are not being disrespectful at all. We are here to gather information. Formalities are important, but they are not that important. The information is more important.
Mr. Nepinak: The road out of the Indian Act, I strongly believe, is through treaty implementation. The comprehensive claims are there. Comprehensive claims are still being negotiated. We also have 125-year-old, 130-year- old treaties that are just sitting there. The blueprints for transition out of the Indian Act are there. We just have to recognize the implementation that needs to happen.
Judge David Arnott, as he was exiting his role with the Saskatchewan Office of the Treaty Commissioner, published a really good book about treaty implementation called Treaty Implementation: Fulfilling the Covenant. It is groundbreaking work. Some of the work that was done with the Saskatchewan Office of the Treaty Commissioner involved going to our elders and capturing the essence of what treaties mean to First Nations people. The process has also started in Manitoba, but I am not sure if it is to the same extent that they experimented in Saskatchewan. That is what I strongly believe. I believe we have got to work toward treaty implementation to get out of the Indian Act.
Senator Dyck: Chief Bone and you, Chief Nepinak, were talking about initiating a pilot study to gain information from the grassroots people, to be managed and utilized mainly by yourselves. I was wondering whether you would consider doing that maybe in partnership with people who used to be in the Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan, such as Paul Chartrand who is now at the Global College at the University of Winnipeg and the chair of the University of Winnipeg Aboriginal Governance Program. He was head of the Institute on Indigenous Government in British Columbia. I am not sure whether it is still there. Many research projects happen through universities that probably never really get to the grassroots people. Therefore, it would be a good idea if you could work together with them; it would be information that would serve you the best.
The Chair: All right. They nodded in the affirmative.
Go ahead, you can have a supplementary on this.
Senator Sibbeston: There is so much to say. Chief Clearsky raised the question of young people who get educated and what good is it. They go back to the reserve, and what good is it? I know that Chief Clarence Louie dealt with that; his answer was to have economic development. Children or students have to have some purpose; you have to educate them for some purpose. It is no use them going to grade 12 without anything to come home to. The answer to that is then, if possible, to have some economic development so that the students coming home have a purpose, so that children can know when they finish school, they will have a chance to get a job. They will know that they are attending school for a reason, that it is not for nothing.
I know that that is the answer, and it is not that easy to accomplish. I am hoping that all of our First Nations are moving toward self-sufficiency in terms of economic development. I am sure that the goal for all First Nations is to have their own economic self-sufficiency.
With respect to getting out of the Indian Act, it seems as if all the land claims, all the self-government agreements that have been made so far between First Nations and the federal government have provisions where they get away from being governed by the Indian Act. They have their own self-government agreement in terms of what they want. That is the case with so many agreements: the Ta'an Kwach'an, the Sechelt, the Westbank, and with the Inuit people up in the Arctic. I believe that is the answer.
I do not know what the process in Canada is, whether every First Nation has a chance to make an agreement with the government on self-government or not. I do not know what the line-up is, nor why some accomplish it and others do not. I am sure there must be a desire to get out of the Indian Act because First Nations are doing that.
Chief Nepinak talked this morning about carrying on or doing things under the provisions of the inherent right provision, trying to make changes under the inherent right. Section 35 of the Constitution guarantees the Aboriginal rights of people. Under that then, there is an inherent right to self-government. I imagine, in time, that all the First Nations in Canada will work toward self-government. It will be under that provision, not under the Indian Act.
Fifty years from now, I bet very few people will still be governed by the Indian Act. Agreements will have been entered into under the inherent rights to self-government that are there in the Constitution. However, it is vague and not clearly set out, so you have to negotiate the obvious things, and you have to really pursue it hard to accomplish that.
When you say that you want to things accomplished under the treaty implementation, I understand in a way what you mean. You are basically saying, "We signed a treaty long ago, and we want to interpret it in modern terms; we think it means this." Then, of course, there needs to be some negotiation to see whether the federal government agrees.
In the Northwest Territories, most areas have accomplished comprehensive land claims. The Tlicho have self- government, and other areas are working on their self-government agreements. However, the one group, the Akaitcho, who are negotiating based on a treaty implementation, for some reason, are not getting anywhere. They seem to be at a deadlock. I am sure it all has to do with the question of what a treaty means. They are having a difficult time. The federal government seems to have a difficult time accepting that approach.
I am just wondering whether the fact that they are having such a hard time with that in the North means it is a bit of a dead-end street for the time being, until it gets clarified or some real progress is made in this area so that that process is available.
However, in the North at the moment, there is no problem with comprehensive land claims; everyone has land claims. In contrast, with this process, people are stuck and are having a hard time going anywhere.
I just make these comments; I do not know whether it helps, but if you want to respond to that, that would be nice to hear.
Mr. Clearsky: Sorry to lead you to understand that our students get their grade 12 and stay within the boundaries; some of them do. We are trying to do our own economic development in our community. There are only so many things we can do with what little monies we receive through economic development dollars.
Listening to the Minister of Finance this morning, he was talking about being $50 billion in debt. Where is that going to leave us in the future? We will be getting cut soon and so on?
We try to continue on with our venture in Brandon for the three communities, as I stated this morning, for our own people. We keep getting shot down. We go up against a brick wall, and that is where I was referring to our Grand Chief of Manitoba. He is not looking after the interests of our First Nations.
To me, any information should be given to and any consultation should be with us chiefs. Besides, as I stated earlier, there are more bands pulling out of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, so he will not be representing all of Manitoba. That is why I am saying this.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: There has been a lot of talk about grassroots people and ensuring everyone knows what is happening within the First Nation. I am just surprised; I do not see any women here voicing their opinions on the election issue. Go get some.
The Chair: Maybe they are right, we should have gone to them. That is what they are saying. Two of the chiefs have said this, Chief Bone and Chief Clearsky. I will not speak for the other chief.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Well, that was my only question. Thank you.
The Chair: You got your answer.
Mr. Clearsky: I have to apologize for that. I walked out of the assembly and this woman called me in there. I do not know her; she is not from our community. In our traditional ways, she gave me this tobacco. I am not an elder, I am just a chief speaking on whatever I think is best for my community. Anyway, she gave me the tobacco. She said, "Our grand chief never mentioned the women or the youth in his opening statements, so I would like you to get back to that mike and express about the missing women," and so on.
I said, "Okay, I will, but there is a protocol here. We have a group of elders over there. They are the ones you should go and see." Because that is my beliefs, I said, "Would that be okay if I go and ask these elders?" She said, "Go ahead, do what you can, but if it does not happen, I want to see you at that mike." I said, "Okay."
I asked the elders; it is part of the teaching. I told them what happened. They said, "No, no, you go; you have to learn. That woman asked you; you go and carry it out. That is part of our teaching; you go," so I went.
There were a few ladies from my community that wanted to come this morning. I told them to come ahead. I told them where it was and asked them to bring some youth. They have not shown up, so that is why they are not here. It is not because we are being prejudiced toward women.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I did not say that.
Mr. Clearsky: Even though in my treaty it says that I can have four wives, I still never accomplished that.
The Chair: If you had, you would not be here.
Mr. Bone: I think it was more of a communication problem as to why there are not any women. In terms of the workload that you have heard us talk about, one of the responsibilities is trying to ensure we have councillors present or women present at this gathering. It was part of our difficulty — at least for me anyway — because of the amount of work I have.
This issue about the elections is major. It is really important really important. I recognize it, and it is of major importance. It was in the newspaper. I remember I met with my friend here, Mr. Ahmo, and we were talking about what was in the paper. He was lucky to have read a small section; it was not big news. It did not appear to be big news in the paper, at least not in this neck of the woods. I did not hear it on the radio; I was listening to the radio to hear about it.
However, for us, we know that this is a major issue, a major concern, and we really want to do some work on it. It has been talked about at assemblies and at our council tables over the years. Sometimes it has to do with money; it has to do with communication, in terms of being able to get here.
I also want to make one comment on a nod that I made in reference to the question about research, about participating with universities. We have done a little of that, I think, through the health table, in participating with the Centre for Aboriginal Health Research. We did an evaluation with them. We wanted to participate — at least I did — so we decided to participate with the promotion of research within our tables as chiefs and councils. It has to be driven by us and the information has to be brought to us. We have to own the information, and we have to be able to use that information.
I agree that we should be rounding up all the research that our students from our reserves participate in. Not only from the University of Manitoba but Winnipeg, Brandon, and all the universities, we need to gather up all those studies so that we could take a look at them because maybe some of the answers to what we are talking about on this issue are there.
I also agree that we should participate in an initiative. Perhaps we should do it by pilot to gather more information about some of these issues that we are dealing with because we want to come up with answers.
It is okay for Canada to say sorry. It is okay for us to begin a reconciliation, but what are we doing that is hard? What is it, how are we going to make the real changes? I think the way that we do that is to let us gather the true picture from Keeseekoowenin, Pine Creek, Waywayseecappo and places such as that to bring that information. Then we bring it to the tables where people can make decisions about it, whether they are chiefs and councillors, federal ministers or provincial ministers.
Mr. Nepinak: I wanted to comment on Senator Lovelace's point about the absence of women in our circle here today.
It has only been relatively recently that I have really begun to recognize the influence and the power of women in our communities. I can only speak from my own personal experience with it.
When I graduated from law school, I was happy to just kind of keep it quiet. It was the women who said, "No, we will have a celebration for you, and people will come out, and they will recognize your accomplishments." I said that was okay, if that is the way it is going to be, that is the way it will be then. That is one example.
The women organize the events that happen in our community, and they make sure that the events that occur in our community that need recognition get the recognition they need.
My great-grandmother has long been gone now, but when our family comes together, there is never a time we come together where some of the lessons and the words that she had are not talked about. The principles of who we are come from our women, you know.
When it was time for me to run for election, it was the women who said that it was time for me to run for election. I think it is important to mention that even though we do not have female voters here today. It is important to know who is really holding the power in our communities, in my opinion.
Senator Hubley: If you have outstanding land claims, pulling away from the Indian Act, would that have a detrimental effect on the resolution of those land claims in your estimation?
Mr. Blackbird: I will see if I can answer your question.
The treaty is where we got our land claims from. It was not from the Indian Act. We still have outstanding treaty obligations that need to be honoured today.
Senator Sibbeston, you asked how these communities come up with self-government agreements. They are the result of a land claim, or the result of not having a treaty. I do not see being able to amend or prop up the Indian Act.
The Chief Nepinak, from Pine Creek, mentioned the treaty implementation. I think there is a real misunderstanding about what treaty really means to the First Nations and the non-First Nations people. When we talk about the treaty, it was an arrangement made by our forefathers that we have to honour today; as much as we do not like that we are not benefiting from that treaty agreement. If we really looked at the treaty and how we were supposed to benefit, it was talking about a sharing relationship.
I think that all started with a change in the 1930s when, for instance, the province, or the feds transferred the agreement to the province. Until that point, we never relied on anyone; we provided for ourselves. When they transferred, if they were illegally transferred, the federal government took it upon themselves to say that we transferred it over to the province. That is where we start to see dependency arise from. Until that point, from 1871 to the early 1930s, we did not depend on anyone. That is when we really started to see the effects of the Indian Act. It was being forced on us, how we elected our leaders.
Today we still elect our leaders under the Indian Act. They just picked at it and used it in the meantime. At some point, it has to change and get back to the way we used to govern ourselves. I thought I would mention that.
Senator Hubley: I have another question on consultation and communication. Certainly it has been a theme, both in our hearings yesterday and certainly today, that getting back to the grassroots is important for us to consider in any of our future hearings. However, I also heard that the chief and council are in place as well. I think, Chief Bone, you had mentioned that we have to remember that if the federal government decides to do something, it is fine, but they have to also communicate and to speak with you on whether that would go ahead.
Where do you see the grassroots? You are chief and council. We have the chiefs at the table, I believe. Do you feel that it is with you that we should be consulting, or if we should go beyond you and consult then with members? Perhaps we have both. I do not mind who would like to answer that, but it would be interesting to get the opinions, since we have both members and chiefs at the table today.
Mr. Blackbird: I will see if I can answer that. I do not think I will be overstepping my bounds here.
You asked where the youth are or where some of the women are today. I think if we are going to do something — I am not trying to speak on behalf of the leadership, the people still sworn to leadership — we would have to hold those discussions in our communities and then bring back the results. We would have a consultation. We have never done that yet.
If you are talking about research, we would be going to the communities and holding these discussions with the community members. We would ask them whether we want to get out of the Indian Act, and what we want to do, and how we are going to make it better.
We have to be provided with those resources so we can hold those discussions and see what it is all about. If we hold these discussions in Winnipeg, how many people will be present? If we hold these discussions here in Dauphin, you see behind us they are not here. The people are at the community level. That is where all the people are.
If we are going into the communities, we have to provide what they are being consulted about. For example, in this case, we are consulting about elections. If you want to do it the way the old missionaries did it, they went house to house consulting, asking you to come out to Sunday church. That is a good way of consulting people, go out to each household and hold these things on what they are being asked. Go right to them.
A one-day forum will not do it because some people are not mobile or some people cannot be bothered, or maybe they never get the notice. If we are going to go out and consult our members, we have to consult every one of our members.
Senator Hubley: Do you feel you were consulted about the hearing today? We do our best to advertise. I do not know if we are always on the mark, but we certainly make every effort to inform people. Do you feel that you had enough information from wherever to appear here today?
Mr. Blackbird: Actually, I just became aware of it a few days ago.
Senator Hubley: How did you become aware of it?
Mr. Blackbird: The executive secretary for the council member sent me the email.
Senator Hubley: That is good.
Mr. Blackbird: I got back to whoever, I am not sure, I do not see the name here, and told him I am confirming Chief Bone's thing. I got a hold of Chief Bone. I am not sure how far he knew in advance that you were going to come here.
Senator Hubley: Therefore, you were the grassroots?
Mr. Blackbird: I only heard of this two days ago.
Senator Hubley: However, you are the grassroots?
Mr. Blackbird: Yes.
Senator Hubley: Okay.
Mr. Blackbird: I got an email.
Mr. Bone: I think we gave instructions to contact people through our executive council. It is interesting to hear the challenge in terms of trying to find out the truth.
Senator Hubley: Just clarify.
Mr. Bone: Yes, clarify, but it is also a little disrespectful because we are the official representatives of our people, our grassroots people. They are just right outside my door. That is how close I am to the First Nations, to my people.
The clarification I would like to add is that you have the responsibility to talk to the chief and council first. The process that Mr. Blackbird explained, and the process I talked about in research gathering is the second part. The key thing is that in order to practice the respect that we have for each other, you have to talk to the chief and council first.
I will share a little story with you. For example, in Treaty Two area, Southwestern Manitoba, there is oil being found; there is a well I hear being drilled almost every day, or every week in the southwestern corner of Treaty Two territory. Now, if I could afford and bought myself the equipment and went there as Treaty Two and talked to the Pipestone people, the Dakotas, and maybe some of the local farmers who all agree that there is one more place for me to put a well over there, and I just talked to them only, and they gave me the approval to go ahead and do that, does that give me the right to be able to drill for that oil, or do I have to talk to the prime minister or the premier?
I think that is sort of the way that I would like to present this clarification back to you. We were involved in making a major deal that was called Treaty Two in 1871. It was made with our leadership, and the leadership you see at the table is remnants of that same leadership.
What we are saying, or what I am saying is that we made the deal, we made a major transaction in terms of how settlement should happen in 1871, and we allowed that to happen without any major disruptions. We are asking for that respect right now: If you are doing any kind of future work within our area, which is the Treaty Two area, you have to talk to chief and council first. The other processes we are not opposed to in terms of talking directly to our membership, but it has to be done with our participation, with our agreement, because if we continue on this path it creates problems at the leadership tables. We have seen that happen over the years.
I think that we are still arguing about the hydro line that crossed our community, for example, for $1,600 and a few jobs and a tractor that was given to someone as part of the deal. We have to avoid those kind of things. Those are things that happened in our recent history, in the past 100 years.
If we are looking at that, the other thing too is the discussion on natural resources. Much of our participation and the reason we are concerned about leadership or election terms and all that is so that we would have a time frame, for example, to sit down to talk to the province or to Canada about the natural resources. It makes business sense for us to be able to have longer planning terms so that we can really develop our plans in terms of how we want to negotiate on natural resource issues with the federal government or the province.
Senator Hubley: Thank you for that.
Mr. Nepinak: I would also like to briefly comment on your question on the level of consultation.
Now that we have sat and met and had lunch together, I would be very happy to extend an invitation for the senators to come to Pine Creek. In so doing, coming into Pine Creek, you would sit, and we would smoke a pipe. You would hear some of the stories from our elders. You would hear our youth sing and our drum. We would have a feast from local food, and we would have good discussion. That is what consultation is, when you come to Pine Creek. You are all welcome to come along any time.
The Chair: Thank you, chief.
We have had an addition to the table, and it is Councillor Joseph Maud from Skownan First Nation.
Councillor, the Senate committee is seeking recommendations from the First Nations people in trying to draft a report that would make recommendations to the government about governance. This is mainly about election terms, length of terms and set election dates, tied in possibly with an accountability feature or a recall, or some form of check and balance in regard to election saying that we are going to recommend the extension of terms.
The Senate merely recommends to the government. We will draft a report based on what we are told as we travel the entire country. We will report it back to the Senate. We will ask the government, and generally it is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development that responds to issues that relate to our committee.
You have five minutes, sir, to tell us on this open-mike situation. We have restricted it to a five-minute delivery, and then the senators may ask you some questions if they have any. You have the floor, sir.
Joseph Maud, Councillor, Skownan First Nation: Thank you. Once again, my name is Joseph Maud. I am a councillor of Skownan First Nation, "headman," as we were called when the treaties were signed. I only found out about this when I was reading the weekend paper, it might have been the Winnipeg Free Press or the Winnipeg Sun. The chief may have received a fax from the Senate.
Nevertheless, I am glad that there is some discussion being brought out across the country. I have not heard what the others said, but I guess it would be appropriate if you went to the communities as well. Yes, the leaders are here, but at the same time, sometimes the grassroots people often feel left out.
However, there needs to be some reform in regard to First Nations elections. I, for one, am in support of a longer term of office. Two years is not much time to do things. It seems whatever the leadership is proposing, many of these funding agencies, federal, provincial and others, much of the time it takes about two years just to do the paperwork. Then there is an election called. Then that chief and council might be out of office because it appears they did nothing. Therefore, that is the downside of just the two-year term of office.
The list goes on and on; I could probably talk for a day and a half, but I will try to restrict it, as you said, to five minutes.
I know that there needs to be clauses in the election code or election by-laws for each respective community on, for example, who can be a chief. As it states right now in the Indian Act, the chief can be someone such as yourselves who do not have any First Nation blood. That is the truth under the situation right now. Any of you non-treaty people can run for chief of Skownan First Nation, and you might get in because that has already happened in our First Nation, much to the surprise of the residents of Skownan First Nation.
I am in support of a longer term of office, whether that is three years, four years, five years. The direction I would like to get is from my community membership. However, there is a time restraint, a budget restraint for you being unable to come out to the communities. Two years is not enough. As I said, people could be voted out of office because it appears they did nothing, yet maybe they have a constitution in place ready to submit to the INAC minister to sign off on it, and then they are voted out and it is shelved. Maybe that chief could get back in two years later.
Therefore, there needs to be reform on this very issue. As I said, as it stands right now, the chief does not have to be a First Nation member to run for office on a First Nation reserve. It has happened in Skownan, and we want to change that, but drafting up our own constitution will take years. Many times there is a change in leadership.
I heard one of the previous speakers talk about smoking a pipe and our ceremonies. When we hold council, when we have visitors, when there are discussions such as this, there is a proper protocol. We have been bending over backwards to meet the general public on their protocol, but what about ours?
I went to the apology last June in Ottawa. The Prime Minister said that these kind of things, such as the thinking of the churches and of the government to do away with our culture, with our practices, will never happen again in Canadian history. However, our cultures are still not given equal weight, in any setting, in any form. It is still not happening. I think it has to happen, you know, our culture, our languages.
I just read in the paper about Norway House. Their goal is to have 95 per cent Cree language by 2020. We want to do that in our communities, have you gentlemen, you ladies come to our communities and speak our language; it is the language of Skownan, Pine Creek.
There are many issues. It is so broad, and I know you are going to cut me off soon, but it is just not enough time. I should be given a half an hour. I went overseas standing toe-to-toe with those Russians, and you guys are only giving me five minutes. I was prepared to put my life on the line so that everyone could have freedom; but, anyways, my five minutes is almost up. It is just not enough time, you know.
The Chair: We tried to invite you to our full presentation, which would have given you an hour with questions and answers, but apparently they could not contact you. We apologize for that. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do; we tried. We thank you for your service, by the way.
Now, I will open it back up to questions, if there are any. I appreciate the invitation, which I think you invited us to your nation. My first question is, if you did invite us to your nation, and I asked the previous members of the panel, how do we go there?
Mr. Maud: I would expect you to go up by canoe.
The Chair: We will.
There are two things. The woman next to you is a status First Nation person. I believe you are status as well, are you not, Senator Sibbeston from Northwest Territories and Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick? Senator Dyck, you are not status? You are status, I am sorry, and Senator Hubley is not. I am Metis. I am related to Chief Murray Clearsky, but he will never admit it. I am part Ojibway.
The point is, you invited us, and we would love to go. We have been invited by the chiefs here today. How do we go there on an invitation and not just end up in a beef session by the people you defeated?
I know politics. There is nothing as confrontational as Ottawa. I was a member of parliament before I was a senator. I was a cabinet minister. These people were picking on me every time I got up in question period. However, the fact remains that I know how partisan it can get. How do we go there and get information and not just be subjected to a beef session by people who are opposed to the ruling class, should we say, the chief and councillor that are in? That is the big question that I have got. Maybe you have an answer for me.
Mr. Maud: You are Ojibway?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Maud: You got your foot in the door.
The Chair: However, saying that we are not, presuming that we are not, because unfortunately Chief Clearsky's relatives would not teach me anything.
Mr. Maud: Is not the new senator, what is his name there, the Aboriginal guy, Brazeau, is he not fluent?
The Chair: He is Algonquin.
Mr. Maud: Well, that is very similar to Ojibway.
The Chair: Well, there is a possibility. Do you think that that in itself would dispel any beef session?
Mr. Maud: There is an artificial boundary between us and you guys. As I said, it is that mentality. Our people still feel inferior to everyone in this room because you guys are wearing suits and ties, and so on. Our people will automatically feel inferior. If you are wearing a buckskin shirt and speaking Ojibway, they would feel very comfortable with you and would probably open up to you.
The Chair: I am Metis. I can speak French, but I cannot speak Ojibway, unfortunately. I think that recommendation you make makes sense in dealing with the people. I have got my cowboy hat back here, and I can wear my Metis jacket, which I wore because I chaired the session after the House of Commons in the reading room. Were you there with the Prime Minister when there was a formal gathering right after the apology in the House of Commons?
Mr. Maud: I was there.
The Chair: I was standing there in my Metis regalia. We want to go to the grassroots. That is why we are holding this open-mike session. However, unless we are invited on to First Nations territories, I would not go. I would want some assurance that we would hear a broad cross-section of the opinions and not just a certain segment of the band, of the First Nations people on a particular First Nations land. Do you understand what I am saying?
Mr. Maud: Yes.
The Chair: However, seeing that we have an invitation, I will pursue this personally. This is why we set out on this hearing. I am increasingly convinced that we have to find a way to talk to the rank and file on the ground. I do not disbelieve because chief today can become grassroots tomorrow, you know.
I apologize again for the fact that we could not get a hold of you. We did try; we tried with all the First Nations around Dauphin, and you are not that far. You are just up north here a bit, are you not?
Mr. Maud: Yes, it is a long walk.
The Chair: A long walk?
Mr. Maud: It is about a four day walk.
The Chair: A four day walk?
Mr. Maud: Yes.
Mr. Clearsky: Getting back to this consultation and inviting you to our communities, I would not have a problem with you coming to our communities. However, as chiefs and councils of our communities, okay, if there are a few dollars to have this duty to consult, if there are any dollars from the Senate toward a chief and council to consult our community members, our grassroots people, to bring this forth, and get you welcomed to our communities, I would like to see a process like that.
The Chair: That would help you make it possible?
Mr. Clearsky: We would open the doors; we would do our own thing with respect to the election process, but we need monies. Do you know what I mean? We need money for whatever we do. That is the way the White man taught us.
The Chair: It comes from INAC. It costs you $3.00 in consulting to get $1.00.
Mr. Clearsky: That is right; that is exactly what happens to us. If we submit a proposal to INAC and want to do some consultation with our membership about the Senate coming to our First Nation, if we put in a $10,000 proposal, we will be lucky if we get $2,000, you know. I am asking the Senate here if we can put in a bigger travel claim.
The Chair: Councillor Maud, you are right. When I grew up, you know the white horse on the highway, when Jack McDowell, the MLA, came to town with a suit and tie on, we would just stand there and look because a suit and tie was what our fathers wore when they went to a wedding. Generally, the suit was too small after five or six years. I understand what you are saying, it is intimidating. You get a bunch of people coming in and you have to try to break down the barriers before you get there. I will be the first one to admit that I was not going to put my tie on, and I am sorry that I did that today. I generally wear my cowboy hat at all times, but I have to be respectful of the ladies in this room, so I took it off.
Mr. Clearsky: You just never answered my question.
The Chair: About the money.
Mr. Clearsky: Are there monies?
The Chair: I do not know whether there is any money, but we will find out.
Mr. Clearsky: I think that would be a better process than you just coming to our community. I do not have a problem with that.
The Chair: If I go there, I will ask for funds to set up a consultative process.
Mr. Clearsky: Right.
The Chair: They will ask me what I need funds for.
Mr. Clearsky: Because we want to come to these communities.
The Chair: Do you want us to go to the community?
Mr. Clearsky: We want you to come to our community, but in order for us to prepare our communities, we have to have a consultation process about the information that we have here, that you are giving us, or what we are exploring with the election.
The Chair: That question, I cannot answer. We will check it out and see what there is.
Mr. Clearsky: Otherwise, just in each community, each chief and council can go ahead and have the discussions without the membership.
The Chair: Are we talking big money?
Mr. Clearsky: I do not know; maybe $5,000 or $10,000 per community.
Mr. Bone: I like the way the discussion is going, but I think we have to be careful about what we are trying to achieve through this whole process. We are trying to get some legitimate information from our membership. If we are going to go for one of showmanship or whatever we are doing as part of this whole process, then our collection of information from our membership will be limited, or it would be set up in such a way, or even challenged. If we are going to participate through a bit of a consultation exercise — I am starting to get onto this — I will add five more grand to it. I am kidding.
I think what I am getting at is that if we are going to start a process, you have heard me talk about supporting studies and research or even talking to a focus group, that type of initiative. If we participate like that with each other, then we have to pay some serious attention to what we are doing here because we will be taking this information to a pretty high level. You will be taking the recommendations to the federal government, I gather. You want to make sure that all of the information that is being gathered is true information; I think that is the word I am looking for.
If we participate in this, I agree that if you want to a sample look at what you think our membership will say, then I think we can set that up; we can work with that.
We have to be serious in terms of this whole process so that it does not just simply turn into a circus. We want to make sure all of this activity is legitimate.
Mr. Clearsky: We have to prepare our membership.
The Chair: I hear you.
Mr. Clearsky: You people show up in our community, bang, bang, everyone is gone. You know, you are asking similar questions.
The Chair: I hear you.
Mr. Clearsky: Then the negative group will get in there. Do you know what I mean?
The Chair: How do we make it look so that it is not run by you guys?
Mr. Clearsky: What is not?
The Chair: You are the leadership.
Mr. Clearsky: That is right.
The Chair: We sit down and say, here, we are sending you $5,000. You are inviting us into your community. How do we structure it when we go in there so that it does not look as if Chief Clearsky's looking after his gang and the other gang is out?
Mr. Clearsky: No. I am saying that we use that money for elders, for some of the youth and the women's group, and also a lunch and coffee. All this, that is what we would use that money for, not for Chief Clearsky's pocket.
The Chair: I realize that. I am more concerned about the optics, how it looks. I think we can get a budget for this through the Senate because we could apply for it, and I could defend it in the Senate. When we ask for money, we craft a budget. Then I present the budget by way of a report to the Senate. Then when I ask that the report be approved in my name, all the senators have the right to question me about where this money is going and what I am are you doing with it. As a chair, I am not there; the vice-chair would do that.
Mr. Clearsky: You could put it toward rental or whatever. It would be the same as here. I imagine they are paying a few thousand dollars for this with lunch and everything. Do you know what I mean?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Clearsky: It would be the same thing.
The Chair: Well, this is the best deal in town.
Mr. Clearsky: As an example.
The Chair: We will move in here; we will to stay here permanently, the deal is so good. Downtown it was pretty expensive.
Mr. Maud: Have you got a name for this bill?
The Chair: For what?
Mr. Maud: A name or a number? Eventually this will be a bill, right?
The Chair: No.
Mr. Maud: Bill 272, for example?
The Chair: No. We will have a report made, and we will give it a name. The same as when we did a report on the economic development, which we called Sharing Canada's Prosperity — A Hand Up, Not a Hand Out. Also, we had a report on specific claims called Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice.
We do not want legislation from this anyway because we are hearing across the country that First Nations do not want legislation on this; they just want their inherent right to govern themselves and to set up the structures themselves by way of a constitution, an electoral act, a chief electoral officer or what have you, whatever they decide.
We are out here trying to collect information from right across Canada that will help move this along quicker, sooner than later.
Mr. Maud: I am just envious of Sandra because there is a piece of legislation that she started, Bill C-31.
The Chair: Yes, I know she did. She is famous.
We thank all of you; we thank you for the invite. We apologize to you, sir, for the limited time that you had. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. We appreciate the time you have taken and the honesty you have brought to this debate. We will be in touch with you somehow. If you have any more information that you want to get through to us, get it through to the clerk of this committee, and it will possibly form part of the record.
Before I adjourn, I want to thank the support staff, all the people who make this hearing possible because without these people, we would be lost. We would be like White men wandering around in Riding Mountain National Park.
Mr. Clearsky: I have one question before you go. This information that you have from us, our input and so on, is this going beyond?
The Chair: It will be in Hansard.
Mr. Clearsky: Will we get copies of the information, the transcripts, and so on?
The Chair: We could provide that.
Mr. Clearsky: I would not mind a copy.
The Chair: We will get you one. You are witnesses, so you are entitled to it. We will get you copies of the transcript. Maybe ensure that we have your contacts; so it shall be written, so it shall be done.
(The committee adjourned.)